If you look to the little advertisement that’s opposite this (of course, when this entry moves down the page, this direction will make no sense, so please keep in mind that this is a spatio-temporal instruction, one that has a limited shelf-life—at most) you’ll see that there is the opportunity to “win” two discs that include the music of Crosby, Stills and Nash. This is music that was first released to the public in 1969 and 1982. When you do the math, that’s somewhat frightening. That is, the first “album”—called such then—made it to the racks 37 years ago. Chances are probably good that the vast proportion of the people who are looking at this site (this means you) have been around for less than that period of time. Then there is that 13-year gap between the release of the first disc, Crosby, Stills and Nash, and the group’s third disc, Daylight Again. Which brings to mind the fact that there are probably few—if any—contemporary (and relevant) bands who have lasted 13 years (or about whom it can be said that 100% of the original members have performed on a disc after that period of time, which means that bands like The Who don’t count, although a Bob Dylan solo performance would count).
The three members of that band are still around. Still making music. But does anyone listen to it? Is it as good as what they did decades ago? If it isn’t, then it brings to mind this question: Do musical performers get better with age or, like badly corked wine, do they go vinegar? To be sure, there are the physical failings that we are all prone to: vocal cords become less lithe; fingers are hobbled by arthritis. Notes that were once hit or grasped are no longer readily achieved. Does this mean that performers who were once vital become something that is only tolerable or objects or nostalgia as we listen to their contemporary performances and cut them tremendous amounts of slack assuming that they’re people whom we once revered? (If we reviled them, then it would be like nuking fish in a barrel.)
Is there a point at which performers should just stop, leave the stage, go away? When the Rolling Stones—or, more accurately, what’s left of the Rolling Stones—perform at Superbowl XL this Sunday in Detroit (see the first parenthetical remark above as this, too, will soon be moot: timing is everything), will they be better than they were the many previous times they’ve performed in Detroit (practice makes perfect, right?), or will they be nothing more than embodiments of things past? Should we turn down the sound on our TV sets and crank up Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out (which is a mere 36 years old)?
Does rock and roll never die, or should it sometimes?
Enter to win some classic rock. You know you want it!